PSH-22-0076 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On July 28, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored.  The Individual had a history of two recent Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrests.  A DOE Psychologist subsequently found that the Individual meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and had not been reformed or rehabilitated.

At the Hearing, the Individual did not dispute that he had been properly diagnosed with and AUD, and instead contended, that he had sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by both diagnoses . However, the AJ found that the Individual had not submitted sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by his AUD.

The AJ found that Individual's testimony demonstrated a high level of insight, introspection, and intelligence, noting that the Individual clearly understood the significance of his AUD diagnosis and had made a strong commitment to his sobriety. However, as discussed below, the AJ found that contradictions between the Individual's treatment programs (TP) records and the Individual's hearing testimony raised concerns regarding the Individual's credibility.

The TP records indicated that the Individual consumed alcohol in early April 2022, while the Individual testified that his last alcohol use occurred on January 16, 2022.  Therefore, if the Individual's last use of alcohol occurred in early April, he would have only been abstaining from alcohol use for three months at the time of the hearing, which would be insufficient to establish a pattern of abstinence. More importantly, the AJ found, it would mean that the Individual provided false testimony under oath, and that he provided false information to his father, his counselor, and his Sponsor as well.  When confronted with the information from the TP records indicating that the Individual used alcohol in early April 2022, the Individual testified that that information was false, and was only placed in the TP record in order to ensure that his treatment would be covered by his insurance. The AJ found that the Individual submitted no evidence corroborating this assertion . Moreover, while the Individual repeatedly testified that he intends to permanently abstain from alcohol use, his Counselor reported only that the Individual intended to abstain from alcohol use only "until he feels like his feet are more firmly on the ground with being in social situations." Finally, during his hearing testimony, the Individual testified that he had not had much trauma in his life, while his records from the TP quite clearly indicated the contrary.

The AJ found that while it was possible that these contradictions had explanations, such explanations were either not provided during this proceeding, or if they were, were not sufficiently corroborated to resolve the concerns that they raise. Because the Individual had not submitted sufficient laboratory records to show that he has abstained from alcohol use since January of 2022, the AJ concluded that he would have had to rely upon the Individual's testimony to conclude that the Individual had abstained from alcohol use since January 16, 2022. The AJ found that contradictions discussed above meant that that the Individual's testimony, alone, could not be relied upon to resolve the security concerns raised from his two DUI arrests and his AUD, Mild, diagnosis.

The AJ found that Individual's criminal activity concerns were inextricably linked to his AUD noting that both of his arrests occurred after incidents in which the Individual was intoxicated and were clearly symptomatic of his AUD.  Accordingly, the since AJ found that the Individual had not convincingly shown that he is rehabilitated or reformed from his AUD, the Individual had not yet shown that the root cause of his criminal activity has been successfully addressed.

Accordingly, the Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0076, Fine)